it's what jaxtraw said, the authorities aren't risking anything while that programmer has everything to lose. the worst part is that i'm not so sure if it would ever happen if poker wasn't involved, i mean the entire case they're making seems so far fetched.

I don't think we are hearing the entire story. Otherwise, why would he do the plea agreement?

He was afraid of the 800 pound gorilla and got bad advice.

Because we have FREEDOM

This would be a proper analogy if you were selling those tools to people in a country where it was legal to crack safes.

FREEDOOM you mean?

you forgot the logos from the big corps

Cops will be cops the world over..

This was a large undertaking.. lots of manpower. Well rehearsed. My guess is they had a list of every instance where his name popped up on a crime computer, going back to when he cheated on an exam in high school. Maybe a psychological profile as well.. They really wanted his cooperation.

standard for new york. spent 26 years there, not sure if going back



this guy sees a bikerider getting a ticket, makes a joke, gets arrested.

case dropped so everythings ok right?

And this would be Stuart's position, for sure. But that's not what D.A. Vance claims, according to his press release (linked in the Wired story):

"The overwhelming majority of the approximately $1.1 million cash and $1.2 million in money orders deposited into EXTENSION’s bank accounts are alleged to be direct proceeds of illegal, U.S.-based bookmaking operations, including operations that conducted their activities in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York State, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas."

I.e. Vance has Stuart et al selling his tools to illegal operators -- more akin to the safe-crackers in the preceding analogy.

Link: http://manhattanda.org/press-release...ompany-and-exe

Fun fact: the Assistant D.A. and the head of the office's Organized Crime Unit is named Eric Seidel.

I gotta believe Vance has totally overstepped his boundaries here. There is nothing I think that can be said that can justify any of this in my eyes (someone in the software industry). It's pure thuggery and intimidation. Very likely all charges will be dropped and dismissed but good luck Stuart for recovering all the damages.

Is it possible Vance is really leveling all of us and actually trying to get UIGEA et al withdrawn via ridonkulous activities?

I wonder how much, if any of those direct proceeds, could possibly be related to something like a Pinnacle Sportsbook situation. Stuarts licenses his software to a company that says they're operating on the up and up. Unbeknownst to the public at large, they're also taking bets illegally in the States. They get caught. Next thing you know, Stuart gets arrested and because the sportsbook was taking illegal bets, he also takes the fall for taking illegal proceeds.

..had to be Terms of Service included with the software, indemnifying the company of any wrong doings by the customers..

whoever wrote the TOS may have screwed up.. and maybe that's the same lawyer who, with no knowledge of criminal law, advised him to cooperate.

A movie in the making? I like the plot.. it's different.

Yeah, interesting. Based on the language in the D.A. office's release, it sounds almost certain that the profits in question came from business conducted with an outfit at least similar to Pinnacle. I suppose the burden of proof will rest on determining whether or not Stuart/Extension Software knew their clients were offering bets illegally in the U.S.

So here's what becomes tricky. Stuart's claim is that this charge is merely a strong-arming technique by Vance to gain information on larger targets. (By the way, I admit I have a mental image of Stuart as the Eduardo Ruiz character in the movie Traffic, sparring with Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman.) More than $2 million in reported revenues aside, I can't imagine Stuart has enough legal resources to battle the charge to its end, so the Manhattan D.A. is largely waiting Stuart out before getting the intel he desires. So Stuart's "you can have my key to the back door when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" stance only can last as long as his legal budget.

Bah, this whole situation blows.

bulls_horn (and kfs), I'd like to revisit the safe-cracking analogy. The true comparison is if the D.A. is saying:

"You are the builder of the safe, so I assume you also know how to circumvent the combo. We need to you to break into a few of the safes you sold because we think their owners have locked up key evidence in there.

"No? Okay, then we conclude that you know they are concealing evidence, and thus you are charged for aiding and abetting."

how are gun makers not sued

The charge against Stuart is "first degree promotion of gambling".

From the article linked in OP:

"According to New York authorities, Stuart and his employees “knowingly advanced and profited from unlawful gambling activity by engaging in bookmaking to the extent that they received and accepted in any one day more than five bets totaling more than five thousand dollars.”

"Stuart isn’t actually accused of making or taking bets, however, just creating the software that allowed other people to do so. The New York district attorney’s office says his software was used to make illegal bets in that state between Sept. 2008 and June 2011."

that is an interesting argument, does this mean all weapon manufactures will be sued because they aid and assist criminals?

"Barret isn’t actually accused of killing people, however, just creating the tool that allowed other people to do so."

There are actually specific laws indemnifying them. Otherwise they probably would be sued often. Lobbying still works in America.

this just proves to me that prosecutors all around the world are equally dumb

It's not unusual for district attorneys to threaten and then follow thru with criminal charges if one does not agree to cooperate or plead out, it happens every day and often happened re online poker. I think ppl might be surprised at the number of confidential informants (payment processors, software ppl etc) are still on the books, and government payrolls.

As the devil's advocate here, if Stuart contends that he had no knowledge of his software being used via US customers, why accept payments in cash and money orders?

If he had agreed to supply the backdoor, presumably the prosecutors would use any evidence they amassed thru the sting at trial, that includes the trail of how they got that evidence. We are assuming there was no court order for this, but we dont know that. If there was no warrant however,it's obviously illegal, and those prosecutors could be in a chitload of trouble.

I sat on a jury once years ago that involved a lot of wiretaps and undercover cops. I can only imagine how those things could increase exponentially if the mob is involved.

When a customer says "I have to pay in cash.. " (or a money order) I wouldn't complain, and wouldn't ask questions. With new customers I might demand cash or the equivalent.

Especially true of international customers. Forget about calling a Canadian bank to see if a customer's check is any good. They won't tell you squat. Likewise when the customer says "Send the product. I will wire you the money" you either trust them or you don't.
If they bounce one on me, I might demand cash thereafter.

But the cash thing is curious. Do they mean he was paid in person with paper bills? You don't send it by mail.
Money orders have a traceable record, but cash.. Without reading bank statements, how would the cops know...

Ultimately what's the difference? As long as you keep accurate books, and pay taxes, the form of payment doesn't matter.

But when people hear "cash", they imagine bags or bricks of cash.. bookmakers.. gamblers.. untraceable payoffs... drug dealing.. etc.
A DA might throw it into his statement for dramatic effect.

retweet

Guns don't kill people -

Poli games are down the street.